Also there were conditions linked to the debt. Here is the money but you have to use it to build a highway using Chinese companies. Pure neocolonialism
Those conditions are negotiable. Countries can say "no" to "using Chinese companies". If countries say "we want local companies" then Chinese negotiators say "okay let's do that".
Furthermore, a major reason why Chinese companies did the work was due to a lack of skilled workforce in the country. Some countries chose for a hybrid model, where they ask for Chinese companies to train local workers.
Finally, if something does go wrong, then The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
> Countries can say "no" to "using Chinese companies".
Except they aren't as the contracts prohibit open bidding.
> The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
Except when they are not willing, which is most often the case. They restructure when things are seemly fine but if shit hits the fan like in the case of Sri Lanka, they wont discuss it.
But the CCP prob jots it down to 'a mistranslation' and 'rumor' as they have done in the past.
They restructured African debts when Africa got into trouble due to COVID, so the claim that "they only restructure when things are fine" is emperically false.
Regarding being able to negotiate: high-profile African commentators, such as Gyude Moore, have pointed out on multiple occasions that it's perfectly possible to say no to an offer, after which the Chinese offer new terms. You should check out his videos some time.
So because they restructured some they must restructure all despite the fact they refused to restructure Sri Lanka. So Sri Lanka is stuck paying like 5% interest vs japans 0.7%.
I know you love the CCP but it’s hilarious how much credit you give them despite not wanting to live in China.
I can also turn this around: what about the non-Chinese lenders who own much more Sri Lanka debt? Do they restructure? Why single out China specifically? Why is it necessary for China to allow restructuring all debt? Would you impose this standard on all other lenders?
It is entirely possible to be fed up with anti-China propaganda while not being specifically a CCP supporter.
It is also entirely possible for an overseas American to say positive things about the US without living there.
If I do live in China you’ll just say that I'm being forced to say these things. Since you can't, you mock me for not living there, making up some arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. This is intelectually dishonest.
It’s not anti-China propaganda when 1) it’s not propaganda. And 2) it’s about the CCP not China.
But calling it anti-China is a typical tactic to attempt to discredit people.
China credit is the only one knocking on doors and wanting ports to be built by paying off governments to push things through when the courts are saying it’s not a good deal and it has non favourable clauses with the end result of china getting to control the port they built at the cost of the government.
Furthermore, a major reason why Chinese companies did the work was due to a lack of skilled workforce in the country. Some countries chose for a hybrid model, where they ask for Chinese companies to train local workers.
Finally, if something does go wrong, then The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.